Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[innonimatu]

But that is inevitably tied into any secessionist move.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Your thinking is monstruous. I am sorry but there is no other adjective I can think of for someone who predicts open warfare or so much worse for no clear reason at all.

First that is meant to be a snarky comment and not taken seriously
Secondly the EU was created to prevent another world war keep germany contained, then it grew into this idea of a Federalised Europe project.
Thirdly the EU should have listern to Germany instead of France over the entire Greek assention. Then France over Germany for the solution to the current economic recession.

 

[innonimatu]

The idea of a federalized Europe was there from the start. The "founding fathers of europe" (as the EU propaganda departments have taken to calling them) just though that starting with the economy was the only way to achieve it.

Speaking of propaganda, I have noticed commercials on TV here praising the EU - paid for by the EU. You know a bureaucracy is in deep trouble whet it has to start buying advertisements for itself...

 

[AdrienIer]

France is not going to have an europhile (or germanophile) president, that much we can guess now.

Quite the opposite really. Fillon met with Merkel this weekend to strengthen the ties, Macron is a classic liberal who will probably have no problem with Europe and the socialists eliminated their least europhile candidate on sunday. The only europhobe candidates will be the extreme ones (Le Pen and Melenchon) and they're not going to win

 

[Silurian]

So the governement has lost the court case about parliment voting on invoking clause 50.

""Caroline Lucas, the co-leader of the Green Party, responds:

“This case is a win for parliamentary democracy, and a blow for those minister who planned to railroad Brexit through without any proper scrutiny.

"The spotlight now falls on MPs – and in particular the Labour Party – to properly scrutinise the Government’s plans and act accordingly. That must mean that Labour rethink the support they’ve given to triggering article 50 prematurely, and instead join those of us who refuse to be pushed into Theresa May’s artificial Brexit timetable.

“It’s astonishing that Ministers ever thought it was right to trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament - and their battle in the courts really does expose a contempt for the democratic process within the Conservative party.

"I will not be capitulating to the Tories over Brexit – and will vote against prematurely triggering Article 50 in the Spring. As the co-leader of a Party which stands for environmental, social and economic justice I will not support a Government offering no assurances to EU nationals living in Britain, threatening to turn this country into a tax haven and planning to throw us off the Brexit cliff edge by ending our membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.”
""


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-eu-article-50-vote-theresa-may-a7542436.html

 

[Arakhor]

The Government has lost its appeal to the Supreme Court, who ruled 8-3 that Article 50 was indeed a matter of law and needed Parliamentary assent. The devolved administrations are not required to give their assent, as that is a matter of convention rather than law. In theory, the Government could now appeal their case to the ECJ, but of course they won't.

 

[Silurian]

Here is the press summary

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-press-summary.pdf

and the Judgement

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

 

[Arakhor]

Any guesses on how the hysterical press is going to spin this entirely expected result?

 

[Silurian]

I think they may be critical.

 

[HAND]

The real battle now will be for Corbyn and the direction of the Labour party. If Article 50 gets voted through, then we are looking at Corbyn being blamed again by the liberal left/remain camp and the possibility of the Labour party splintering.

 

[Mise]

The ruling doesn't even make much practical difference. Corbyn has already said that he'll whip Labour MPs into voting for triggering it. Even if he doesn't, there are plenty of Labour MPs whose constituents have voted Leave who will feel compelled to represent their constituents interest and vote for triggering A50. But even if Corbyn whipped them the other way, to oppose A50, Labour don't have enough seats to block the bill anyway. So the A50 bill will be passed into law and we'll trigger before the deadline no matter what.

What this rather shows is the chaos and incompetence in May's government. If May had simply put forth right from the start a one-line bill that authorised the government to trigger A50 by the March deadline, that bill would have been passed a long time ago, with ease, and with no opportunity for either legal challenge or amendments to it. This was a completely unforced blunder by May, who really hasn't got control of the situation at all.

Brexit could go smoothly, and we could get a decent deal out if it. But May's chaotic Brexit is likely to result in a terrible deal for the UK, one which will needlessly impoverish us and our children for decades to come.

 

[Silurian]

It is very likely that there will be amendments for the results of the Brexit negotiations to be ratified by a second referendum.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

In hindsight, this has probably been a good thing because it appears to be a ’victory’ for both sides.
The fact it was not 11-0 means a lot for Brexiters (it shows there was some ambiguity in the law) whilst the fact the government has to take a bill to parliament also means a lot for Remainers.
The fact that S, W and NI cannot veto it is huge for Brexiters.

It is difficult to imagine a bill not getting through parliament in time for a March Article 50. Or soon afterwards anyway.

On balance this is perhaps the best result because Remainers will be happy parliament can now have a direct say (and will at least reduce some of their, err, complaints).

You live in hope that after parliament has given the go ahead (after we, the peeps, have given our go ahead) then just maybe the Remainers will get behind the country in the forthcoming negotiations. Not holding my breath.

According to the Torygraph, the likely votes against invoking A50 are:

13 Labour MPs;6 Liberal Democrats;1 Green MP;1 Conservative MP;53 SNP MPs;
3 SDLP MPs

In total: 77 MPs.
Out of 650.

 

[Silurian]

The government will have to argue that the people should not have a say in the result of the Brexit negotiations.

If an amendment does not pass in the commons do not forget that there is a House of Lords.

 

[HAND]

The fact it was not 11-0 means a lot for Brexiters (it shows there was some ambiguity in the law) whilst the fact the government has to take a bill to parliament also means a lot for Remainers.
The fact that S, W and NI cannot veto it is huge for Brexiters

Some astute points there, I would also add that a decision of this magnitude had to be raised to the highest court to ensure all due legal consideration was given.

According to the Torygraph, the likely votes against invoking A50 are:

13 Labour MPs;6 Liberal Democrats;1 Green MP;1 Conservative MP;53 SNP MPs;
3 SDLP MPs

In total: 77 MPs.
Out of 650.

I heard it was 60-80 Labour MPs that could potentially vote against triggering Article 50, not that it makes much difference though.

 

[Silurian]

The government has announced that it will be publishing a bill in the next few days.

 

[Arwon]

Some astute points there, I would also add that a decision of this magnitude had to be raised to the highest court to ensure all due legal consideration is given.

So the government will appeal to the ECJ?

 

[HAND]

So the government will appeal to the ECJ?

Well the highest court in the UK then.

 

[Arakhor]

I would also add that a decision of this magnitude had to be raised to the highest court to ensure all due legal consideration was given.

It didn't have to be raised at all. It's rather that May's government was so intent on rushing this through without recourse to Parliament that they decided to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't think that this will stop Brexit at all, but I find it morbidly hilarious that people whose alleged intent is to restore Parliamentary sovereignty tried so hard to avoid Parliamentary oversight altogether.

 

[Gigaz]

One should always keep in mind that it's common among British politicians to say one thing and mean something entirely different. "I will certainly vote for leaving the EU" might just as well mean "I support Brexit, like, totally, I just don't like any specific plan that Theresa May might come up with."